The Hawaiian gazette., 1887-12-27
That Maui Debate,

EDITOR GAZETTE: I have once
more to crave your permission to be
allowed to respond for the last time to
the questions propounded to me by
Rustfcus, whose ire seems to have
been aroused because he could not I'M
contradicted foist or father upon Maui
his ideas as the prevailing public
opinion in regard to the LIQUOR bill.
While l said the best thinking minds
here were not of Rusticus' opinion, |
meant majority of the non-patrons
of liquor saloons, who | think are
more able to give an unbiased and
therefore more correct Judgment on
the matter, as has been evidenced by
ITS reception in the Legislature. Rus
ticus, in his effort to sustain bad
case, falls back upon the effete and
threadbare argument that drink would
be sold irrespective of licensed houses.
No one denies that such contingency
would to certain extent exist, but
not many will believe that the same
amount will be sold illicitly as done by
sanction of law. Does Rusticus mean
to say that were all of the enormous
capital invested in the legitimate sale
and manufacture of liquor in the
United States and European countries
withdrawn, owing TO its suppression
by law, an equal amount to that pro-
duced by this capital would still be
illicitly produced for its votaries in de-
fiance of legal enactments? That
YOUR correspondent does not produce
more potent argument than instances
of Sunday drinking in communities
where prohibited, only exposes the
weakness of his cause. Would he be
able to prove there would not be an
equal amount of drinking in the places
mentioned were saloons in full opera
ton on these days? | think on trial
statistics would tell a different tale.
He must remember that Sundays are
not to be compared to week days in
this respect; on the latter days mems
vocations viii not permit them to
drink, and drink to excess; and, fur
thermore, it is only on Sundays that
workingmen find themselves with the
wherewith to procure drink-their
weeks wage. No wonder there is more
proportionate drinking on these days,
even under restriction laws. what
would it be were there no such restric-
ton? American States that have
passed prohibitory laws, after being
well tested, are exhibiting no desire to
retrograde to the former regime. and
other States show by the ever-increas-
ing popular vote the drift of public
opinion. These are facts that are not
lost sight of by thinking minds, al
though they seem not to have come
within the range Of Rusticus' cogita-
ton. As to his assertion that there
has been more drunkenness and riot in
this district prior to the establishment
of saloons, | believe a commission of
inquiry would find it unsupported by
evidence. There is trouble and danger
of figuring in police courts, that would
prove deterrent to many in ransaeking
Chinese dens for the brands your cor
respondent eHumerates, that do not
exist when standing at the bar of
saloon. Rusticus must have mistaken
the meaning of the term self-righteous-
ness, of which he accuses me for
making an admission that would-be
righteous people might hesitate to
make. Such phrases, when not en-
ployed in their proper sense, become
meaningless terms, besides personal
innuendo does not bring conviction,
and is neither clever nor graceful in
Pro BoNo PUBLICo.